Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

what if you bring the ground to uke's shoulders when he/she/it pushes on you? wouldn't that creates a backlash force within uke's body instead of you, and uke's applied power would push he/she/it away? just a thought.

Perhaps a clue can be found in the above video. External versus 70 year old CXW.

In my opinion CXW made him push into his strongest structure ( not that this is an easy feat against such a strong power) and the strongman didn't attempt to push upwards. If the strongman had handled a dead body like a fridge, he would probably automatically have thought of this and succeeded.

What I"m describing should, on some level, be demonstrable by anyone chasing "internal". Good, great, horrible, doesn't matter. the intention and goal is the same. While top level modern athletes certain learn efficient body/muscle usage, they do NOT train and sculpt their body/muscles to the degree that they obviously do and then magically eschew the use of those very muscles that they spend so much time keeping honed and at peek condition.

Yes you are right, they keep those muscles, because they use them constantly. You need to have strong muscles to make large amounts of force. I'm not saying that anyone ever stops using muscle, because they can't. You must use muscle to move the body, the more you have, the more force is possible, either giving or receiving.

Efficient use of that muscle is to goal. No one is changing systems.

Quote:

You could go get Lebron James, physically, one of the most gifted and high level athletes on the planet, and put him in the scenario I gave and I'm still 200% confident he would respond exactly the same way as anyone else. Just go watch him play, watch him fight through a hard screen and you will see his body respond in a way that is congruent with the example I gave. That is, the flexing and tensing of those honed and sculpted muscles to solidify his frame while he drives through that screen. There is nothing about what he's doing that's different than what any athlete, high level or otherwise, does and none of that matches up with the mindset and goal of what I described in the demo/test.

There is something different he's doing, that's why he's one of the best athletes in the world. It's not just being strong, but how you use that strength.

Look, we all use muscle to move, internal, external, athletic and couch potato. No one on earth uses anything else to move. The more powerful your muscles the more power you can generate. That's the truth. If we can agree on that we can move on.

Being strong isn't all there is. There are also things like coordination of your muscles. How well can you use the muscles you've got? How well can you relax the muscles that don't need to be working, and create explosive contraction with the one's you've got. How balanced and agile are you?

Then after this we can move on to relational ability, and we move outside of what we are talking about now.

From what I read above, you are describing the difference between inefficient body use and efficient body use. And you are misunderstanding that top level athletes have to be both strong and efficient. Just because they are muscled, doesn't mean that they don't spend most of their time learning to use that muscle.

Quote:

Most likely we don't completely know why, but that's only a sticking point for you. Science doesn't always know why something happens.

I'm not asking for a scientific study. I'd simply like to know how you think it works. If you don't have an idea of how it works, then why make such strong assumptions?

Quote:

At some point you have to be interested enough to get out and experience it yourself and go from there because it's more likely that none of us are going to "know" on a level that will appease you.

I've spent lot's of time training in 'internal martial arts', I just have different answers then you do. If you keep an open mind maybe we'll find something new. I'm personally trying to keep an open mind (although it's getting harder and harder), so I'm looking for logical answers, to very simple questions.

Nice pictures, they very much illuminate what you mean by the atheletic approach to receiving a push, but I'm curious as to how would you draw these again for the person in the diagram where the angle of force that will be applied is not known in advance of its arrival?

(Maybe draw a blindfold on the man so he can't see?)

I'm interested to see! (I'm leaving my blindfold off...)

I'm not sure what this has to do with force once it's inside of the body? If you couldn't feel force, I would agree with you, but if you are moving around you can feel things.

I guess you're making a point about 'omnidirectional stability'. Which is an interesting concepts. How do we make that happen?

See attached. In my mind and body it's more like this. Via relaxation and mental intent you change the angles of the force and how it moves through you. It's something that has to be felt and practiced to really understand that it happens. I once heard someone use the term mentally directed force vectors and it sounded good, so sure, why not, but again, that's outside the scope of this thread, but what others have said about not giving the force anywhere to rest on you is perfectly valid. Muscle tension creates those resting spots. Oh and what you said about creating the shortest angle/distance from the force is also valid, but it's not done by using alignment.

How does that happen? How can you take a force, and simply make it go into the ground without physically directing it?

That's a neat theory, and would be a good idea if it were possible. But I don't see how that can be done. Could you explain how this can happen?

I agree too- getting out of the way is the best way to solve the problem.

problem with getting out of the way. remember the youth, speed and strength? can't get out of the way with youth and speed, they will catch up with you eventually. then what? this is where you want to think about, what if i can borrow their strength and speed to use against them? what sort of problem i need to solve to be able to do that? especially, when i am older, weaker, and slower. we know the ancient said "four ouncse of forces to move a thousand pound", which meant they, more than likely, solved the riddle. we just need to figure out the answer from hints they left behind.

of course, if all else failed, we can always resort to thermal nuclear weapon or kimchi!

In my opinion CXW made him push into his strongest structure ( not that this is an easy feat against such a strong power) and the strongman didn't attempt to push upwards. If the strongman had handled a dead body like a fridge, he would probably automatically have thought of this and succeeded.

Thoughts?

(trying to connect this explicitly to aikido training)

Tohei would hold against any push successfully and say it was ki training for aikido training.
Tohei would say he was simply extending ki and mention his rules for doing this.

Still, even a strong man like Tohei, with as much strength in one arm like some others in two, in an attempt to show the audience the working of ki, once, was simply tipped over onto his back like a fridge. His partner didn't play the game as expected.

Tohei is said to have successfully influenced the great Chiyonofuji and an other sumotori. So even they must have thought his training method was good.

I guess you're making a point about 'omnidirectional stability'. Which is an interesting concepts. How do we make that happen?

You're asking me the question I've asked you to illustrate. You've said quite clearly that you believe what people would call internal is merely an athletic skill, something which you understand. I'm looking for your input on how to achieve stability vs a push from any direction where the angle of the incoming force is not known in advance since this is something that a skilled internal practitioner, by your argument a skilled athlete, can demonstrate.

I would like more diagrams if you would be so kind, the other ones helped to show what you meant quite well.

You're asking me the question I've asked you to illustrate. You've said quite clearly that you believe what people would call internal is merely an athletic skill, something which you understand. I'm looking for your input on how to achieve stability vs a push from any direction where the angle of the incoming force is not known in advance since this is something that a skilled internal practitioner, by your argument a skilled athlete, can demonstrate.

Ha, kind of flipping things around aren't we? I admire the attempt.

I've never said that ANYONE can achieve omnidirectional stability. I don't think anyone can. I can't even imagine how that could possibly happen. That's been one of my questions all along.

I do believe 'internal' people and athletes, both being at a good level, are physically doing basically the same things. I don't believe 'internal' people can do anything that athletes can't do. Good athletes feel the force coming in, and adjust to it as it does. This is also what I believe good internal people do. I don't believe that good internal people are simply always stable from every direction and they never need to adjust to new forces from different angles.

If they ('internal' people) can do this, my question is how? I do not suggest that athletes can do this, 'omnidirectional stability'.

Quote:

I would like more diagrams if you would be so kind, the other ones helped to show what you meant quite well.

Thanks in advance!

I've made my diagrams. I made them to illustrate how I understand one can align with with incoming force. I have yet to see a logical argument for how 'internal' stability is different, so it would be impossible for me to make a diagram for this. If you explain to me how it's suppose to work, maybe I could make a diagram for you.

I do not suggest that athletes can do this, 'omnidirectional stability'.

Ok, I think I'm done then.

I will leave you these diagrams as food for thought, each picture represents a different person (of hypothetical origin, not referring to any specific person) with a different degree of ability (displayed in ascending order) at receiving incoming force from any angle standing in a posture to receive the incoming push; a brief description of their level is below each picture.

Since the force vector is unknown I've left the arrows off the pictures (I'm also no artist!)

"You Suck"

"Minor skill"

"Coherent stability"

"Awesomesauce!"

I don't feel qualified to discuss the inner workings via an online medium so I'm going to resign from the discussion at this point; best of luck in your training.

I've never said that ANYONE can achieve omnidirectional stability. I don't think anyone can. I can't even imagine how that could possibly happen. That's been one of my questions all along.

I do believe 'internal' people and athletes, both being at a good level, are physically doing basically the same things. I don't believe 'internal' people can do anything that athletes can't do. Good athletes feel the force coming in, and adjust to it as it does. This is also what I believe good internal people do. I don't believe that good internal people are simply always stable from every direction and they never need to adjust to new forces from different angles.

If they ('internal' people) can do this, my question is how? I do not suggest that athletes can do this, 'omnidirectional stability'.

I've made my diagrams. I made them to illustrate how I understand one can align with with incoming force. I have yet to see a logical argument for how 'internal' stability is different, so it would be impossible for me to make a diagram for this. If you explain to me how it's suppose to work, maybe I could make a diagram for you.

Chris
I don't remember anyone of the named "internals" talking about omnidirectional stability all the time and every time. To me at my low level of understanding the goal for me is directional awareness leading to some level of directional stability that incorporates some level of skill that allows me to re-establish stability quickly no matter the direction it comes from. I believe that it is possible at some level of varying force, and one changing directions, to establish what appears to be so stable that one is not moving. The level of awareness in the receiving person is so keen the the response to the incoming changing forces happens so smoothly that it nullifies the incoming changes almost before they happen. To make this possible one needs to bring into play all of their tools.....mental, physical, spiritual, patience.......and on and on..... to finally reach some level of competency.

The difference here is the training methods, some of which seem of have been around on a limited basis for sometime. There are keys to the puzzle that are in these "internal" methods that up the skill levels.....but won't shorten the training time. These could improve most of the solo drills currently part of Aikido. For years I thought the practice of placing your hands palm up on the underside of the arms of the individual pushing on your chest was to physically drop then come back up under that pusher to lift them up on their toes..... this is correct, but it is only the beginning level....and we never got any more than that. We never got out of this frame. The next stages should have the pushing person coming off their feet without you seeming to do anything. How do you get there is the question and the needed training. Please don't ask for illustrations as I can do them.

I have been asking these questions for 30 years, getting a hint here and there.....resources and doors to open are few and hard to find......and easily lost.

I've made my diagrams. I made them to illustrate how I understand one can align with with incoming force. I have yet to see a logical argument for how 'internal' stability is different, so it would be impossible for me to make a diagram for this. If you explain to me how it's suppose to work, maybe I could make a diagram for you.

I'd say that from an Aikido standpoint, of your 5 diagrams the first one represents the ideal way to meet an incoming force using dispersion. Diagram 2 illustrates the least desirable body configuration. Diagrams 3 and 4 show body configurations that would effectively ground the force provided the wrist, elbow and shoulder joints are not locked out. The drawback to the position in diagram 4 is that movement from that position is difficult and time consuming due to the excessive proportion of body weight placed on the front foot. Diagram 5 would work well for Spiderman (I know you included it for illustrative purposes only, but I couldn't resist).

Grounding, dispersion, redirection and cycling can be trained individually but in practice are rarely used in isolation.

Chris, what role does mind assume when it comes to your Aikido training? It's been my experience that there's a marked difference in performance of the "push" exercises when one performs them with and without mind and body coordinated.

To me, it sounds like there are many different people calling what they do 'internal', yet they all have hugely different ideas about what is going on.

Some people believe you do use local muscles groups. Some people think you don't. some people think you start with local muscle groups but then stop using them. Some people seem to think that connective tissue is producing force. Some people think that they can be stable in all directions at once, some people don't. It goes on and on.

Until there is a general consensus about what is meant by the word 'internal' it's silly to keep talking about it. We should just be talking about the problem, as simply as possible, and work our way out from there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem:
Force is coming into the body. How do we best deal with that force once it's in the body?

What things help us, what things make it harder to deal with the force?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My theory on solving this problem:
I believe, that aligning (see diagram) your body to the force makes for the best possible solution. It requires the least amount of muscle, by letting skeleton to take some of the force.

To me, not using good alignment to the force (see diagram) would require more muscle then not aligning to the force.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further questions:
If you don't align to the force, how are you not using more muscle?

If you align in some way that isn't using skeletal alignment, how are you doing that?

Do you believe there is something inside of your body that is capable of making force that is not a muscle?

Until there is a general consensus about what is meant by the word 'internal' it's silly to keep talking about it. We should just be talking about the problem, as simply as possible, and work our way out from there.

I guess we better stop talking about Aikido too, because there's no general consensus there, either.

OTOH, looking through through the thread I see that the great majority of people participating have a basic consensus about what there're doing, but are expressing that with varying degrees of success (I'm not saying that I would do better).

Good athletes feel the force coming in, and adjust to it as it does. This is also what I believe good internal people do. I don't believe that good internal people are simply always stable from every direction and they never need to adjust to new forces from different angles.

Chris,

Dan Harden, for example, can demonstrate exactly what you stated above that you don't believe is possible. Dan, in introductory workshops, covers Tohei's one-point model as a representation of foundational/rudimentary six-directional IP/IS training then adds to the foundation until the demonstrations involve fure-aiki (which has been discussed at length in the past) in a conditioned body (his) that inherently cancels forces regardless of their incoming vectors.

It is not athletics, and no amount of trying to pound a square peg into a round hole is going to change that.

About a decade ago, I trained with an ex-NFL defensive back, Lou Smith, with an extensive background in BJJ (and FMA) -- so this guy, as you can imagine, knows how to take someone down. My Hakkoryu teacher has an excellent model for utilizing sen-no-sen to counter committed attacks, and they've worked on every grappler who's shown up with dojo-arashi on the brain. It is good stuff, and in line with a lot of what you've describing as "aiki". Lou became a student because of this reputation (he was a gentleman and I enjoyed training with him). It's been awhile since I've seen Lou, but he runs a well-regarded sports-training business in Orange County, and I'm sure he'd be happy to vet what I've stated here.

But guess what? It's not fure-aiki -- which would not require sen-no-sen to negate an attempted double-leg: the takedown attempt would simply fail no matter how much the grappler changed his/her approach to generating leverage (Dan speaks of the ability to generate aiki from the back of the legs, which he's allowed attendees to sample by trying, at full strength and with all manners of regripping-and repositioning allowed, singles and doubles on him during workshops).

To me, it sounds like there are many different people calling what they do 'internal', yet they all have hugely different ideas about what is going on.

it depends on where they are in their training. i mentioned somewhere about kyu rank vs shihan. kyu folks know certain level, shihan knows more. not all internal folks are at the same level. i would list myself in the kyu rank level vs folks like Sigman, Dan, Howie, Akuzawa, and so on.

Quote:

Some people believe you do use local muscles groups. Some people think you don't. some people think you start with local muscle groups but then stop using them. Some people seem to think that connective tissue is producing force. Some people think that they can be stable in all directions at once, some people don't. It goes on and on.

Until there is a general consensus about what is meant by the word 'internal' it's silly to keep talking about it. We should just be talking about the problem, as simply as possible, and work our way out from there.

actually, we have a lot more general consensus among internal practitioners that you make it out to be. you have problem accepting our answers, because they don't fit into your model. you want us to fit our stuffs into your model. why would we want to do that? our stuffs work just fine. if your stuffs work just fine, then we don't really need to discuss, do we? and for some reason, you don't think folks understand external/athletic, as though none of us haven't done sports and other martial arts in our lives. a bit presumptuous don't you think?

I haven’t been contributing much to this thread because I think the whole project is hopeless. This thread is trying to use inadequate physical models to explain how IS works, starting with a statement of the problem that makes it impossible to reach a reasonable conclusion.

Let me justify those assertions, and suggest a model that might get you further.

The physical models are inadequate because they treat the body like a set of stacked blocks (as in Chris’ block man diagrams) and and limit thinking to to “muscles only contract”. Yes, that’s fundamentally true, but the body is so complex it’s irrelevant, practically speaking. Tendons wrap around processes and redirect force. Fascia creates a web of connections so muscle action here can affect the body over there. Parts of the body act like pullys, so a contraction down here can cause something to raise there. Scientists are still arguing about how the body works structurally—I saw a video last year posted by a scientist who had successfully modeled the backbone as a tensegrity structure, with vertebrae suspended in a web of ligaments rather than stacked on each other like blocks. Insisting on a simplistic model of the body will make your inquiry impossible. It’s like trying to study biochemistry using only particle physics—theoretically possible, practically not.

The way the problem has been framed the problem guarantees that it can’t be understood from an IS perspective. The model of the problem people seem to be operating from is that a force comes in, and the receiver resists it (by grounding it, or whatever). High school physics states that if I have a 50-pound push on my chest and I want to stand against it, I need to counter with 50 pounds equal and opposite force. Otherwise, I’m accelerating in one direction or another. Resisting the force, however “efficiently”, turns into bracing yourself against it so it doesn't push you over.

That’s a fundamentally losing proposition, martially speaking. If it’s a 200 pound force, I’ll be crushed however efficient I am. Even if I’m not, I’m pinned in place by that force and my own equal and opposite resistance. I might be totally immoveable, happy as a clam, pround as a peacock—until the guy clocks me with his other hand.

So here’s a better model, equally simplistic but at least it doesn’t point in exactly the wrong direction.

Model the body as a sphere, gimballed so it turns freely in any direction. Any incoming force hits the surface of the sphere. If the force is off-center, even the slightest bit, the sphere turns and the force is deflected. If the force is dead on center, the slightest turn of the sphere moves it off center and deflects it. The force can’t prevent that turning because the surface of the sphere moves perpendicular to the force, so the force can’t counter it. We counter the 50-pound force not by opposing it, but by disrupting it so we never have to deal with it at all.

Stupid experiment to try this out: Shut your eyes and push on a wall at a 45 degree angle. If you open your eyes, you’ll automatically compensate. If you shut your eyes, you’ll feel the wall push you off balance, out into the room.

Some implications of this model:

The receiver is totally mobile and totally free.

The harder the attacker pushes, the more they throw themselves off balance.

Because even a miniscule redirection, or none, is enough, the attacker is offbalanced immediately, with no apparent movement on the receiver’s side.

The reason for Dan’s favorite quote, “Not a fly can alight that does not inducing turning” becomes self-explanatory.

Experientially, this model matches better how using IS actually feels. If I’m doing it right, I don’t feel like Superman holding up 200 pounds—I feel like there’s no push to deal with. It’s irrelevant.

Of course, the model is simplistic. I have to train enough connection into my body so that it can act like a sphere. Not only the body as a whole, but every part of the body, has to be able to act this way. Then there’s layers and layers of details about movement and connection have to be layered on top.